Out of all the great failures in the distribution of consumer information, this is what gets latched onto? She has a point, but there is so much ground to cover in informing consumers that it's always going to be an uphill battle.

Jae0o0:I mostly get angry when people say its 'just' a csection. No, its a major surgery. Just because its done all the time doesnt mean it shouldnt be taken very seriously.

Agreed. My wife had to have one due to medical issues. It was crazy to walk into the OR and see the procedure. She had a minor infection post surgery which thankfully healed. She was not fully recovered for a long time.

On the bright side, with a c section you don't have to wait that long to resume intercourse (as compared to traditional delivery). Of course, just having a baby, you have to wait forever anyway...

Urthel:Jae0o0: I mostly get angry when people say its 'just' a csection. No, its a major surgery. Just because its done all the time doesnt mean it shouldnt be taken very seriously.

Agreed. My wife had to have one due to medical issues. It was crazy to walk into the OR and see the procedure. She had a minor infection post surgery which thankfully healed. She was not fully recovered for a long time.

On the bright side, with a c section you don't have to wait that long to resume intercourse (as compared to traditional delivery). Of course, just having a baby, you have to wait forever anyway...

I had one kid vaginally and one kid via csection, I was told to wait 6 weeks to have sex after both.

Both hospitals I've trained at (medical student) with OB services had a policy of no elective primary (first time) c-sections. Of course due to the slight, but significantly higher (under 2%) uterine rupture for subsequent pregnancies, repeat c-sections are still game even if prior c-section is the only indication.

Of course both hospitals were county hospitals with a common OB/Gyn residencies and didn't have any trouble finding business (both c-section and vaginal).

Jae0o0:Urthel: Jae0o0: I mostly get angry when people say its 'just' a csection. No, its a major surgery. Just because its done all the time doesnt mean it shouldnt be taken very seriously.

Agreed. My wife had to have one due to medical issues. It was crazy to walk into the OR and see the procedure. She had a minor infection post surgery which thankfully healed. She was not fully recovered for a long time.

On the bright side, with a c section you don't have to wait that long to resume intercourse (as compared to traditional delivery). Of course, just having a baby, you have to wait forever anyway...

I had one kid vaginally and one kid via csection, I was told to wait 6 weeks to have sex after both.

The doctor told us we just couldn't do anything to mess up the scar. My wife, being a nurse, figured things were fine earlier depending on position used. As I said, though, by that time she was strung out by lack of sleep and severe hormonal issues.

Urthel:Teufelaffe: Urthel: "Babies born via C-sections have an increased chance of having to be administered into the NICU [the neonatal intensive care unit] and suffer from breathing problems," she said.

Anyone think they factored out legitimate c sections birth in the "study" saying they are bad? If you have a premie, they go to NICU. How did that premie come into the world? C section.

Using their logic, one could say that hospitals are bad, since pretty much everyone admitted to one subsequently requires medical care.

I know people who believe that. You only find sick people in hospitals, ergo if I do not go I will not be sick.

Urthel:Teufelaffe: Urthel: "Babies born via C-sections have an increased chance of having to be administered into the NICU [the neonatal intensive care unit] and suffer from breathing problems," she said.

Anyone think they factored out legitimate c sections birth in the "study" saying they are bad? If you have a premie, they go to NICU. How did that premie come into the world? C section.

Using their logic, one could say that hospitals are bad, since pretty much everyone admitted to one subsequently requires medical care.

I know people who believe that. You only find sick people in hospitals, ergo if I do not go I will not be sick.

They have a lot of sick people in hospitals -> many illnesses are transmittable -> if you are only slightly sick (and thus have a compromised immune system) going to the hospital will put you at risk for becoming sicker. And it will cost you money. That isn't that crazy since it is actually true.

Urthel:Teufelaffe: Urthel: "Babies born via C-sections have an increased chance of having to be administered into the NICU [the neonatal intensive care unit] and suffer from breathing problems," she said.

Anyone think they factored out legitimate c sections birth in the "study" saying they are bad? If you have a premie, they go to NICU. How did that premie come into the world? C section.

Using their logic, one could say that hospitals are bad, since pretty much everyone admitted to one subsequently requires medical care.

I know people who believe that. You only find sick people in hospitals, ergo if I do not go I will not be sick.

Health is funny that way. We try to distill wisdom down to a point where it's applicable for everyone, but frankly that's almost impossible. Great examples of that are things around what you eat - practically everything that is in food (fat, sugar, salt) are "related" to some disease or condition or another. They neglect to mention things like, "Eating fat is okay, so long as you're not indulging in too much sugar and vice versa, and you have to make sure to not be sedentary, and also you probably should monitor your health because everyone is different and maybe that won't be okay for you, but you won't know unless you try it and take the time to carefully watch your progress and health."

Way too farking complex for most dimwits to manage - so we get things like, "Eating red meat is bad for you."

Teufelaffe:Some don't quite get how their vagina works and think they'll be "lose" forever after having a vaginal delivery.

Some women do, in fact, become "lose" forever after a vaginal delivery. The same issues also cause occasional postpartum (and continuing) incontinence after such deliveries. Natural birth sometimes causes quite a bit of pelvic floor damage. There's a lot of folks out there (midwives for example) who say NATURAL IS THE ONLY AND BEST WAY!!! when there's quite a few potential problems doing it the old-fashioned way.

Not that there aren't plenty of cautions to be had with C-sections too, the main one already having been mentioned - potential increased risks to future pregnancies/deliveries. Then there are times when it's not up for debate - like with me. I had the cord wrapped around my neck and wouldn't have survived a normal delivery.

My wife had 2 c-sections, the first came after about 12 hours of unproductive labor. The doctor said one thing that calmed my worries about c-sections:

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

That's it. Whatever gives the baby the highest chance of survival, a doctor will choose that option. If having a c-section means shaving a few percentage points off the risk of death in a particular scenario, then they should use it.

Purists need to EABOD & DIAF. Yeah, women didn't always have access to c-sections, and most of the deliveries turned out just fine.

Somaticasual:Out of all the great failures in the distribution of consumer information, this is what gets latched onto? She has a point, but there is so much ground to cover in informing consumers that it's always going to be an uphill battle.

Women's health. After Republicans went full fledged 'war on women' for the election, women's health is still a hot topic. Especially since women are the primary health-concern drivers in relationships (take your meds, do your exercise, go to the doctor) as opposed to men (hey, I lost a finger! I get a new nickname!).

dave2198:My wife had 2 c-sections, the first came after about 12 hours of unproductive labor. The doctor said one thing that calmed my worries about c-sections:

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

That's it. Whatever gives the baby the highest chance of survival, a doctor will choose that option. If having a c-section means shaving a few percentage points off the risk of death in a particular scenario, then they should use it.

Purists need to EABOD & DIAF. Yeah, women didn't always have access to c-sections, and most of the deliveries turned out just fine.

Most. Many babies also died.

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

Yes,however they are talking about elective c-sections. Scheduling a major surgery for the birth is what people are doing. That's not what's best for a healthy baby. Your wife on the other hand,had 2 probably life saving surgeries after trying vaginal. They are talking about something completely different

dave2198:My wife had 2 c-sections, the first came after about 12 hours of unproductive labor. The doctor said one thing that calmed my worries about c-sections:

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

That's it. Whatever gives the baby the highest chance of survival, a doctor will choose that option. If having a c-section means shaving a few percentage points off the risk of death in a particular scenario, then they should use it.

Purists need to EABOD & DIAF. Yeah, women didn't always have access to c-sections, and most of the deliveries turned out just fine.

Most. Many babies also died.

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

Exactly. The goal is to have a healthy baby and a healthy mother at the end.The point of TFA is that when you have a c section that isn't needed that doesn't always happen, since y'know it's major abdominal surgery and there can be long term problems for both the mother and the child.

dave2198:My wife had 2 c-sections, the first came after about 12 hours of unproductive labor. The doctor said one thing that calmed my worries about c-sections:

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

That's it. Whatever gives the baby the highest chance of survival, a doctor will choose that option. If having a c-section means shaving a few percentage points off the risk of death in a particular scenario, then they should use it.

Purists need to EABOD & DIAF. Yeah, women didn't always have access to c-sections, and most of the deliveries turned out just fine.

Most. Many babies also died.

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

However each c-section makes any subsequent one more difficult as adhesions between the uterus and the rest of the body build up. The last thing you want is to have a needlessly difficult c-section (especially if it's an emergency or "crash" c-section) simply because you wanted an easier delivery.

Whateva_I_DO_WHAT_I_WANT:dave2198: My wife had 2 c-sections, the first came after about 12 hours of unproductive labor. The doctor said one thing that calmed my worries about c-sections:

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

That's it. Whatever gives the baby the highest chance of survival, a doctor will choose that option. If having a c-section means shaving a few percentage points off the risk of death in a particular scenario, then they should use it.

Purists need to EABOD & DIAF. Yeah, women didn't always have access to c-sections, and most of the deliveries turned out just fine.

Most. Many babies also died.

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

Yes,however they are talking about elective c-sections. Scheduling a major surgery for the birth is what people are doing. That's not what's best for a healthy baby. Your wife on the other hand,had 2 probably life saving surgeries after trying vaginal. They are talking about something completely different

Yeah, the problem is that purists are trying to get a foot in the door. They will never stop with special cases like elective c-sections. I have spoken with many women who would like to see the entire practice done away with.

veive:dave2198: My wife had 2 c-sections, the first came after about 12 hours of unproductive labor. The doctor said one thing that calmed my worries about c-sections:

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

That's it. Whatever gives the baby the highest chance of survival, a doctor will choose that option. If having a c-section means shaving a few percentage points off the risk of death in a particular scenario, then they should use it.

Purists need to EABOD & DIAF. Yeah, women didn't always have access to c-sections, and most of the deliveries turned out just fine.

Most. Many babies also died.

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

Exactly. The goal is to have a healthy baby and a healthy mother at the end.The point of TFA is that when you have a c section that isn't needed that doesn't always happen, since y'know it's major abdominal surgery and there can be long term problems for both the mother and the child.

It's called 'too much of a good thing' for a reason.

Agreed, but it's a slippery slope when you start telling women what they should and shouldn't do in regards to giving birth and taking care of a baby. There are many purists out there, who, if allowed to have their way, will do more harm than good. They would ban c-sections, ban formula, ban immunizations.

Jae0o0:I mostly get angry when people say its 'just' a csection. No, its a major surgery. Just because its done all the time doesnt mean it shouldnt be taken very seriously.

Well, should probably put some quotes around "major", there. Simple abdominal incision avoiding areas with vital organs, to removes something that was coming out anyway, as surgery goes it's about as trivial/safe as you get. Getting your wisdom teeth out at the dentist is, if I'm remembering my statistics right, somewhat more dangerous (to you, anyhow, as far as the baby is concerned being born is pretty dangerous regardless, which seems to be what TFA is talking about).

I mean, obviously surgery always comes with risks, but in all frankness so does pregnancy. This is well within "consider risk versus reward and make a judgement call" territory, not the "do not do this unless all else fails" territory that a lot of people in the thread seems to be putting it in. The fact that something comes with some elements of risk doesn't make it automatically last-resort material.

//People are notoriously bad at evaluating risks that don't involve being eaten by a now-extinct large predator. Turns out two million years of middle-of-the-food-chain instincts don't really give you good "gut feeling" sense for top-of-the-food-chain problems. This is why we have specialists who can help you with things like this when you're not, y'know, a doctor yourself.

Jim_Callahan:Jae0o0: I mostly get angry when people say its 'just' a csection. No, its a major surgery. Just because its done all the time doesnt mean it shouldnt be taken very seriously.

Well, should probably put some quotes around "major", there. Simple abdominal incision avoiding areas with vital organs, to removes something that was coming out anyway, as surgery goes it's about as trivial/safe as you get. Getting your wisdom teeth out at the dentist is, if I'm remembering my statistics right, somewhat more dangerous (to you, anyhow, as far as the baby is concerned being born is pretty dangerous regardless, which seems to be what TFA is talking about).

I mean, obviously surgery always comes with risks, but in all frankness so does pregnancy. This is well within "consider risk versus reward and make a judgement call" territory, not the "do not do this unless all else fails" territory that a lot of people in the thread seems to be putting it in. The fact that something comes with some elements of risk doesn't make it automatically last-resort material.

//People are notoriously bad at evaluating risks that don't involve being eaten by a now-extinct large predator. Turns out two million years of middle-of-the-food-chain instincts don't really give you good "gut feeling" sense for top-of-the-food-chain problems. This is why we have specialists who can help you with things like this when you're not, y'know, a doctor yourself.

Why is it that apparently the only time we trust women to make an informed, rational decision about their own reproductive health it's when they are deciding to have an abortion? Get the fark out of the way between women and their doctors making medical decisions about their own health.

Urthel:"Babies born via C-sections have an increased chance of having to be administered into the NICU [the neonatal intensive care unit] and suffer from breathing problems," she said.

Anyone think they factored out legitimate c sections birth in the "study" saying they are bad? If you have a premie, they go to NICU. How did that premie come into the world? C section.

Not only that, but babies taken by C-Section tend to be, other than electives, in distress to begin with. So yeah, they're going to end up in the NICU more than vaginal deliveries. As for having breathing problems, Transient Tachypnea of the Newborn is pretty common.

Princeton Medical defines it as any surgery which requires general anesthesia or the provision of respiratory assistance - i.e. Intubation. C-sections are performed without these - using an epidural. I'd point out, technically, you're still wrong.

I was born via (medically necessary) scheduled c-section, and I seem to have turned out mostly OK. Did have breathing problems as a youth though, but I've always assumed that was because I had whooping cough very young and got bronchial scarring. I suppose the "gut bacteria" thing may have been a factor too.

dave2198:veive: dave2198: My wife had 2 c-sections, the first came after about 12 hours of unproductive labor. The doctor said one thing that calmed my worries about c-sections:

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

That's it. Whatever gives the baby the highest chance of survival, a doctor will choose that option. If having a c-section means shaving a few percentage points off the risk of death in a particular scenario, then they should use it.

Purists need to EABOD & DIAF. Yeah, women didn't always have access to c-sections, and most of the deliveries turned out just fine.

Most. Many babies also died.

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

Exactly. The goal is to have a healthy baby and a healthy mother at the end.The point of TFA is that when you have a c section that isn't needed that doesn't always happen, since y'know it's major abdominal surgery and there can be long term problems for both the mother and the child.

It's called 'too much of a good thing' for a reason.

Agreed, but it's a slippery slope when you start telling women what they should and shouldn't do in regards to giving birth and taking care of a baby. There are many purists out there, who, if allowed to have their way, will do more harm than good. They would ban c-sections, ban formula, ban immunizations.

I would rather err on the side of vanity than needless death.

I wouldn't refer to someone who wants to ban c-sections, formula, and immunizations a "purist" I'd call them a lunatic. And while you may see it as a slippery slope, it's less like a slope and more like a vast gulf of difference between "new research shows it is likely healthier for both mother and child to deliver vaginally when a c-section is not medically necessary, so we would like doctors to stop recommending non-medically-necessary c-sections to women who woudn't have otherwise considered it" and "No c-sections ever for anyone for any reason!"

I'm not going to ask for a citation that there are in fact people who hold the position you oppose, because I know full well that that kind of whacknut has no difficulty finding a space on the internet from which to spout their rants, but conflating the objectives of lunatics with legitimate scientific research as you are doing is granting legitimacy to your opponents by stealing it from legitimate scientists.

meanmutton:Why is it that apparently the only time we trust women to make an informed, rational decision about their own reproductive health it's when they are deciding to have an abortion? Get the fark out of the way between women and their doctors making medical decisions about their own health.

In Texas, they don't. You have to go, see some 'we will scare you into having this baby' videos, talk to a Doctor, read some pamplets designed to show you how cute and amazing and cuddly the child is, then if you still haven't decided Abortion is a sin and a tool of Satan, you have a 24-48 hour cooling off period before you can have it done.

dave2198:My wife had 2 c-sections, the first came after about 12 hours of unproductive labor. The doctor said one thing that calmed my worries about c-sections:

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

That's it. Whatever gives the baby the highest chance of survival, a doctor will choose that option.

If a hospital tells you their sole goal is to deliver a healthy baby then you might want to take that with a pinch of salt. They have business and liability concerns that they are also considering but may not share with you. The fact a lot of hospital practices increase the risk of emergency c-sections, which are a worst case for mother and baby, should make anyone skeptical of hospital motives.

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men:dave2198: My wife had 2 c-sections, the first came after about 12 hours of unproductive labor. The doctor said one thing that calmed my worries about c-sections:

The goal is to have a healthy baby.

That's it. Whatever gives the baby the highest chance of survival, a doctor will choose that option.

If a hospital tells you their sole goal is to deliver a healthy baby then you might want to take that with a pinch of salt. They have business and liability concerns that they are also considering but may not share with you. The fact a lot of hospital practices increase the risk of emergency c-sections, which are a worst case for mother and baby, should make anyone skeptical of hospital motives.

/ glad your wife and child had a healthy outcome.

The doctor, who is his own boss and owns his own practice, is not a mouthpiece for the hospital administration.

The doctor, who is his own boss and owns his own practice, is not a mouthpiece for the hospital administration.

I'll rephrase - a lot of OB practices increase the risk of emergency c-sections, which are the worst case delivery scenario for mother and baby. People should be very skeptical of the OB, and hospital's, motives when they say that their sole priority is delivering a healthy baby.

The doctor, who is his own boss and owns his own practice, is not a mouthpiece for the hospital administration.

I'll rephrase - a lot of OB practices increase the risk of emergency c-sections, which are the worst case delivery scenario for mother and baby. People should be very skeptical of the OB, and hospital's, motives when they say that their sole priority is delivering a healthy baby.

This phrase would have me searching for a new doctor, to be completely honest. Healthy baby AND mother would be the best outcome.

The doctor, who is his own boss and owns his own practice, is not a mouthpiece for the hospital administration.

I'll rephrase - a lot of OB practices increase the risk of emergency c-sections, which are the worst case delivery scenario for mother and baby. People should be very skeptical of the OB, and hospital's, motives when they say that their sole priority is delivering a healthy baby.

Citation please. Seriously. What on earth are OBs doing that you think increases the need for emergency c-sections? While c-sections decrease the risk of neonatal morality, they don't come without risk to the mother. The goal of the OB is to maximize the chance of a healthy baby with a healthy mother.

Every decision made about intervention during birth comes with a trade-off. If you decrease the number of c-sections, you will increase the neonatal mortality rate. Somebody has to have the one dead baby that could have been saved by a timely intervention that seeks to mitigate a small risk. Are you okay with it being your baby? How about mine? Because if you tell me that my baby has a 1% chance of death without a c-section and a 0.001% with a c-section, guess which one I'm going to choose?

daisygrrl:What on earth are OBs doing that you think increases the need for emergency c-sections?

In the case of my SIL, they alternated between giving her meds to speed up her contractions and meds to dull the pain, which slowed her contractions so they'd have to give her those meds again. Rinse and repeat for two days instead of just letting her labor progress on its own.

In the case of my SIL, they alternated between giving her meds to speed up her contractions and meds to dull the pain, which slowed her contractions so they'd have to give her those meds again. Rinse and repeat for two days instead of just letting her labor progress on its own.

Yep - give an epidural which slows labor and makes contractions less productive then give pitocin to ramp up the contractions, which are then more painful than naturally progressing contractions so a stronger epidural is needed, which leads to more pitocin. It doesn't help that epidurals can also cause the mothers blood pressure to drop, necessitating a c-section or that the pitocin induced contractions can put stress on the baby, also raising the risk of a c-section.

Having women on their backs doesn't help either - it's very convenient for the doc but it isn't good for opening the pelvis and makes the woman have to push against gravity, leading to a less productive labor.

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men:Yep - give an epidural which slows labor and makes contractions less productive then give pitocin to ramp up the contractions, which are then more painful than naturally progressing contractions so a stronger epidural is needed, which leads to more pitocin.

You do realize that the epidural is voluntary, right? I realize that the birthing process can be very stressful for the parents, but there needs to be some measure of personal responsibility here. You can't blame the OBs for increasing the risk when they are following the stated desires of the patient.

If I tell my dentist that I want to be put under for my tooth extraction, my dentist isn't the one who's just increased the risk of the procedure, I am.

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat:The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Yep - give an epidural which slows labor and makes contractions less productive then give pitocin to ramp up the contractions, which are then more painful than naturally progressing contractions so a stronger epidural is needed, which leads to more pitocin.

You do realize that the epidural is voluntary, right? I realize that the birthing process can be very stressful for the parents, but there needs to be some measure of personal responsibility here. You can't blame the OBs for increasing the risk when they are following the stated desires of the patient.

If I tell my dentist that I want to be put under for my tooth extraction, my dentist isn't the one who's just increased the risk of the procedure, I am.

In my wife's case they gave her the pitocin after 2 days or not giving her enough water, food, or sleep. After that, things you wouldn't normally have agreed to before sound like much better options.

/Never went back to that OB again, but the damage was done.//At least he didn't have to work late on New Years.

Fukuzawa:Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Yep - give an epidural which slows labor and makes contractions less productive then give pitocin to ramp up the contractions, which are then more painful than naturally progressing contractions so a stronger epidural is needed, which leads to more pitocin.

You do realize that the epidural is voluntary, right? I realize that the birthing process can be very stressful for the parents, but there needs to be some measure of personal responsibility here. You can't blame the OBs for increasing the risk when they are following the stated desires of the patient.

If I tell my dentist that I want to be put under for my tooth extraction, my dentist isn't the one who's just increased the risk of the procedure, I am.

In my wife's case they gave her the pitocin after 2 days or not giving her enough water, food, or sleep. After that, things you wouldn't normally have agreed to before sound like much better options.

/Never went back to that OB again, but the damage was done.//At least he didn't have to work late on New Years.

Again, that comes back to personal responsibility (this time on the OB's part). That shiat didn't happen because he was an OB, it happened because he was a selfish and/or incompetent prick.

Legislation is literally codified morality. That is all it is. Every law is a moral which is enforced using the police power of the state. It is impossible to legislate without "legislating morals". It cannot be done.

Legislation is literally codified morality. That is all it is. Every law is a moral which is enforced using the police power of the state. It is impossible to legislate without "legislating morals". It cannot be done.

Incorrect. For example, we have laws that dictate what color a fire engine can be, laws that set a minimum height for street signs, laws that require certain public workers to wear uniforms while working, laws that specify what foods are offered in public school cafeterias, laws that set forth the definitions of certain words, and so on. Laws and morals intersect, but laws are in no way a wholly contained subset of morals.

Legislation is literally codified morality. That is all it is. Every law is a moral which is enforced using the police power of the state. It is impossible to legislate without "legislating morals". It cannot be done.

Incorrect. For example, we have laws that dictate what color a fire engine can be, laws that set a minimum height for street signs, laws that require certain public workers to wear uniforms while working, laws that specify what foods are offered in public school cafeterias, laws that set forth the definitions of certain words, and so on. Laws and morals intersect, but laws are in no way a wholly contained subset of morals.

Sure they are. Do you even know what "morals" are? Apparently not, if you don't think that codified rules for things count. Having a fire engine the wrong color is bad behavior which is punished. Having a fire engine the right color is good behavior which is not punished. That is absolutely morality.